Parrish v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Parrish v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Parrish v. United States.
In Parrish v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether a litigant must file a second notice of appeal after a court reopens the appeal period. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision, holding that a notice of appeal filed before reopening relates forward to the date reopening is granted. This decision clarifies procedural requirements for appeals involving reopening under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c).
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Parrish v. United States.
The Court held that a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original deadline but before reopening need not file a second notice after reopening.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Parrish v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Parrish v. United States
The case involves the procedural aspects of filing an appeal and whether the litigant was given a fair opportunity to appeal due to the timing of the notice.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Parrish v. United States
The Court's decision involves reviewing the lower court's interpretation of procedural rules and jurisdictional requirements.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening.
-
Why Remedies and Relief is relevant to Parrish v. United States
The case concerns the procedural remedy of reopening the time to appeal and whether a notice of appeal can be considered timely.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Parrish v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening.
The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.
Applying the relation-forward rule, Parrish's notice related forward to the date of the District Court's reopening order.